Jump to content

Talking Dirty!


Jennifer McM

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, Allthatjaz said:

The one we had in the French Alps was small in comparison to the ones you buy over here and would of been a perfect size for a boat. The hopper was on top and needed to be filled once a day. 

 

Could you post up a link to the type of stove you had please? This sounds very interesting!

 

Many thanks if you can...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one in my flat, about 3 feet high by 18 inches square. 1 15kg bag of pellets will last a day, hopper takes about half a bag. Log burner is cheaper but as it has a fan it would work in a boat quite well, not that cheap to buy either. This one is rated 12 kw. Solid fuel stove is cheaper to buy and run.

IMG_20170117_214154.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry folks, I am going to bore on again about hot ash storage inside and CO. Several people in this thread have said that they have stored hot ash inside the cabin, or under a cratch cover and not had the CO monitor go off. I used to do this when I first had the boat, until one day it did trip the alarm. All it takes is one glowing ember in the ash. The incomplete combustion from being surrounded by ash is going to produce lots of CO. Possibly riddling the grate shortly before emptying the pan increases the risk.

 

Since CO can kill you and everyone else aboard very easily, why take the chance for a couple seconds extra work moving it outside to cool?

 

And no running with scissors either, or you'll have someones eye out.

 

Aunty Jenny signing off.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Sorry folks, I am going to bore on again about hot ash storage inside and CO. 

(Best Irish housekeepers accent) "Ah, go on, go on, go on".

 

A good point that's well worth repeating imho. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boater Sam said:

Would these be the wood pellets imported from Canada and the USA by the most environmentally dirty transporters which brought down the Northern Irish Parliament?

There is not much about wood pellets that can honestly be described as environmentally friendly, especially the emissions when burnt in a domestic stove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

There is not much about wood pellets that can honestly be described as environmentally friendly, especially the emissions when burnt in a domestic stove.

Apart from the fact of using either virgin timber and/or imported stock, which defeats the point of biomass in my opinion, what is it about the emissions that are particularly dirty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Apart from the fact of using either virgin timber and/or imported stock, which defeats the point of biomass in my opinion, what is it about the emissions that are particularly dirty?

Burning wood generates a lot of particulates, especially if the wood has a high moisture content.  Sadiq Khan has suggested banning wood burners within London, though DEFRA was only suggesting dirty grades of coal and ‘wet’ wood, though that is probably a first step........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎26‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 12:26, nicknorman said:

We have a tippy box which is fairly good at containing the dust, but I wouldn’t contemplate using it inside the boat. Which still leaves the difficulty of getting the ash pan outside without it blowing around in the wind.

So what's it for if it's not used inside the boat? I've never had one - I just take my ash straight outside and dump in the ditch next to my mooring. If it's really gusty outside you have to be quick to get the pan through the doors without a cloud of ash being blown around, but that doesn't happen very often. I thought Tippy ash cans were for getting the ash off the boat cleanly and safely? 

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, tree monkey said:

Apart from the fact of using either virgin timber and/or imported stock, which defeats the point of biomass in my opinion, what is it about the emissions that are particularly dirty?

Also burning wood even when “carbon neutral”, they never say how long that carbon neutral takes.  Read that it’s about 100 years, which is kinda of useless!   Other fuels like oil and gas doesn’t release as much carbon for the same amount of heat either.  

Edited by Robbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Robbo said:

Also burning wood even when “carbon neutral”, they never say how long that carbon neutral takes.  Read that it’s about 100 years, which is kinda of useless!

 

This point always strikes me too, and I too conclude that claims that burning wood is carbon neutral are bollux invented by stove manufacturers to help their customers kid themselves they are not polluting the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Robbo said:

Also burning wood even when “carbon neutral”, they never say how long that carbon neutral takes.  Read that it’s about 100 years, which is kinda of useless!   Other fuels like oil and gas doesn’t release as much carbon for the same amount of heat either.  

There are some over the top claims for the carbon neutrality of timber which generally don't take into account the processing and transport,  but the point of carbon neutrality in wood is based on active carbon already in the ecosystem, very roughly it's a closed system, trees are a short term carbon store

 

Oil and gas is stored carbon locked out of the ecosystem, we extract it burn it and release it back Into the system, which is a net gain

32 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This point always strikes me too, and I too conclude that claims that burning wood is carbon neutral are bollux invented by stove manufacturers to help their customers kid themselves they are not polluting the environment.

Obviously burning anything will produce by products, carbon neutrality is marketing hype to a degree but assuming we either maintain forest cover or increase the argument has some validity 

13 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

Burning wood generates a lot of particulates, especially if the wood has a high moisture content.  Sadiq Khan has suggested banning wood burners within London, though DEFRA was only suggesting dirty grades of coal and ‘wet’ wood, though that is probably a first step........

You I would imagine a highly processed fuel such as wood pellets would be as about as clean as wood burning can be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This point always strikes me too, and I too conclude that claims that burning wood is carbon neutral are bollux invented by stove manufacturers to help their customers kid themselves they are not polluting the environment.

Not done any real research but it as eco solid fuel is based on sugarcane, and burning releases less CO2 for the same amount of heat, burning wood doesn’t look to be as environmentally friendly as burning “eco” solid fuel.    Although the argument is growing sugar cane for burning the best use of the land and all that.

4 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Oil and gas is stored carbon locked out of the ecosystem, we extract it burn it and release it back Into the system, which is a net gain

However gas and oil heaters are very much cleaner than stoves, if everyone burnt wood again the local air pollution would be drastically increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Not done any real research but it as eco solid fuel is based on sugarcane, and burning releases less CO2 for the same amount of heat, burning wood doesn’t look to be as environmentally friendly as burning “eco” solid fuel.    Although the argument is growing sugar cane for burning the best use of the land and all that.

However gas and oil heaters are very much cleaner than stoves, if everyone burnt wood again the local air pollution would be drastically increased.

But releasing a massive amount of "new" carbon dioxide into the global environment 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

But releasing a massive amount of "new" carbon dioxide into the global environment 

Wood releases a large amount of PM2.5 into the environment.  Gas and Oil doesn't.   Solid Fuel from sugarcane is carbon neutral and I believe the cane grows quicker making the neutral cycle timeline less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

But releasing a massive amount of "new" carbon dioxide into the global environment 

Wood is releasing a massive amount of "new" carbon dioxide into the environment as well tho, that's the point.   At the moment burning wood releases CO2 that was stored from the "environment" 40-100 year's ago and it takes that long to catch it back.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Wood releases a large amount of PM2.5 into the environment.  Gas and Oil doesn't.   Solid Fuel from sugarcane is carbon neutral and I believe the cane grows quicker making the neutral cycle timeline less. 

All of which I can agree with, well sort of, wood is an ideal fuel in rural areas where supply is local and renewable,  importing wood from overseas to burn is just stupid and makes the whole carbon neutrality of wood pure bunkum

Burning oil and gas can be cleaner but that ignores the extraction costs and long term co2 cost

2 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Wood is releasing a massive amount of "new" carbon dioxide into the environment as well tho, that's the point.   At the moment burning wood releases CO2 that was stored from the "environment" 40-100 year's ago and it takes that long to catch it back.   

No it's not, wood is classed as a short term carbon store, in planetary terms it's active In  the ecosystem. 

 

Fossil fuel is a long term carbon store, locked up effective for ever,  with exception 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robbo said:

Wood releases a large amount of PM2.5 into the environment.  Gas and Oil doesn't.   Solid Fuel from sugarcane is carbon neutral and I believe the cane grows quicker making the neutral cycle timeline less. 

Ignoring the fact that large areas of forest are cleared and burnt to provide land for growing the sugar cane, oh and also ignoring all the fuel to process and move the sugar cane half way round the world so we can burn it.  

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Ignoring the fact that large areas of forest are cleared and burnt to provide land for growing the sugar cane, oh and also ignoring all the fuel to process and move the sugar cane half way round the world so we can burn it.  

I didn't ignore the fact! 

1 hour ago, Robbo said:

 Although the argument is growing sugar cane for burning the best use of the land and all that.

 But it's the same issue for burning wood as both encourage deforestation and have the same "half way around the world issues".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Robbo said:

 

I didn't ignore the fact! 

 But it's the same issue for burning wood as both encourage deforestation and have the same "half way around the world issues".

There's no reason a properly managed woodland would cause deforestation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

There's no reason a properly managed woodland would cause deforestation 

The burning of wood would encourage's deforestation as you can't supply enough wood on mass to sustain everyone's heating.  Even if you get your wood from a managed woodland you will just push poorer countries to get their wood from non-managed woodland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Robbo said:

The burning of wood would encourage's deforestation as you can't supply enough wood on mass to sustain everyone's heating.  Even if you get your wood from a managed woodland you will just push poorer countries to get their wood from non-managed woodland.

Again I agree, to a degree. 

Burning wood is only really appropriate on a relatively small local scale, I've never said forests can provide for all the world's heating supplies. 

 

Forests can provide a sustainable source of timber for many things including firewood as a by product.

 

Properly managed can encompass many different approaches, from old school clearfell and replant, selective thinning and even an appropriate coppice cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Again I agree, to a degree. 

Burning wood is only really appropriate on a relatively small local scale, I've never said forests can provide for all the world's heating supplies. 

 

Forests can provide a sustainable source of timber for many things including firewood as a by product.

 

Properly managed can encompass many different approaches, from old school clearfell and replant, selective thinning and even an appropriate coppice cycle.

But wood pellets are not a byproduct, the whole tree goes in.  

 

Added - I have no problem with the principle of burning wood, what I do object to is being told it is so much better than other fossil fuels, or even worse that it is carbon neutral.  

Edited by Chewbacka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.